JADC2 Needs a Leader
Along with Joint Product Lines and Product Managers
Recently, at the 2022 Air Force Summit hosted by the Potomac Officer’s Club, Wanda Jones-Heath, cyber advisor to Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall, noted a few highly relevant things on the current DoD efforts to develop and field JADC2:
“Every service has their own interpretation of JADC2 and they are all different.”
“I’ve looked at all of the documentation associated with all three, we are not aligned with what we need to be to be interoperable.”
“Someone needs to just push us where we need to go, because we are way out here.”
An excellent report titled One Size Fits None written by Dan Patt and Bryan Clark earlier this year succinctly captured some of JADC2’s greatest challenges and proposed some key recommendations. It noted that while the Joint Staff-run JADC2 Cross-Functional Team (CFT) attempts to deconflict and integrate the various Service activities, it has limited control (and potentially expertise). Given its use of an archaic requirements process to exercise its limited control, JADC2 is also perceived as having a solitary customer (the generic warfighter) as opposed to how DoD is really comprised when it comes to most joint warfighting requirements:
the DoD more closely resembles a market where military services, combat support agencies, and defense contractors collaborate to deliver capabilities to their ultimate customers— combatant commands such as US Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM), US Strategic Command (STRATCOM), or US European Command (EUCOM).
The challenge then is to build a system that is interoperable, supports the joint force seamlessly and can leverage the latest technology advances. However, as noted in another comprehensive report from former CSIS analyst, Todd Harrison,
While many programs and activities are simultaneously underway across DoD, a major impediment to making meaningful progress is that no one “owns” the overall JADC2 mission area. Each of the military services owns their respective programs, platforms, and battle networks (and the budgets that fund them), but there is no effective forcing function that ensures the services’ systems will be able to work together. For example, in ABMS, the Air Force is developing a system that may work well for connecting a few thousand aircraft, but the same system may not work well for connecting hundreds of thousands of soldiers (and their equipment) on the ground. And if the Army and Navy develop their own independent battle networks, connecting them to ABMS may end up being an afterthought
The solution, as proposed by Todd Harrison in the same report, was to establish a central authority either by using a Joint Program Executive Office, a new independent agency, establishing a lead Service or establishing a lead Functional Command.
A new independent agency will come with too much overhead and designating an existing Service or Command as lead has proven ineffective at achieving joint outcomes given parochialistic tendencies. However, the idea of a Joint Program Executive Office increasingly has more merit. As a former program manager in a JPEO, I am very hesitant about this approach which is why this organization would need to be organized correctly and managed appropriately.
The JADC2 JPEO would need to be organized around the following concepts:
It should be challenge-driven not requirements-driven as articulated in the One Size paper referenced earlier. This helps ensure that the COCOMs are driving the JPEO priorities while also allowing for longer-term, architecturally-sound technical decisions. Joint Staff will be a partner in these decisions.
JADC2 should not be viewed as a single program like F-35 is today in the F-35 JPEO but more like the Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) of the past. It should adopt the same principles such as emphasizing experimentation, rapid acquisition, iterative development and evolving CONOPS.
The structure of the JPEO should be around a product portfolio where different Product Managers manage the prioritization of activities based on the vision for the effort and the specific COCOM challenges. The various product lines can be based on the different layers comprising the JADC2 architecture.
The JADC2 JPEO will not be able to execute all of the work that is needed to meet the JADC2 vision. Platform modifications or development efforts unique to each Service will be conducted by the relevant Service Office. The JPEO will execute technology development efforts that are enabling or cross-cutting.
The JPEO will have authority to review and approve any Service budget submittals related to JADC2 activities. Disputes will be adjudicated in the Program and Budget Review (PBR) process to ensure that the Services are allocating the necessary funding and are aligned with the JADC2 vision.
The composition of the JPEO organization should be lean and staffed with those immersed in the relevant technologies. A cap on the number of FTEs should be established early (~200) and not allowed to expand - this will ensure selectiveness of the personnel. Maximum use of Highly Qualified Experts to help guide the product teams should be used.
The JPEO leadership should not attempt to manage JADC2 using baselines and EVM-type tools but rather adopt disciplined agile, user-centric methodologies where an integrated capability roadmap of near-term (out 2-3 years) activities is managed to ensure continuous delivery of capability.
The JPEO should establish a senior board of technical and scientific experts who can provide independent advice and expertise on the key subject areas such as technical standards.
This approach will not be perfect and the organization will have to manage a great deal of complexity. The Services have no doubt made significant progress in certain areas and positive work should be allowed to continue. The JPEO will be a collaboration agent more than a director however will need the authority to be directive when necessary. While not ideal, this may be the only way to align current disparate efforts in a coherent way. If the JPEO can be established as a collaborative, learning and agile organization - it may, over time, be able to achieve the grand vision of JADC2.